Miss Bobbie
<img src="http://our.homewithgod.com/wrightsboro/g
Jesus Himself said He was coming soon.
Revelation 22:20: "Yes, I am coming soon."
Revelation 22:20: "Yes, I am coming soon."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
1 Thess 4:13-17; 2 Thess 2 to start with. The apocalyptic passages in Matthew coincide perfectly with a pretrib position as well.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
Can you list a few? I don't believe in pretrib, and I don't know of any passages that don't make sense to me.
</font>[/QUOTE]I know the standard pretrib take on these passages, but my question is about how they don't make sense except in the pretrib view. 1 Thess 4 talks of the rapture, but not the timing. 2 Thess 2 talks of the falling away and the antichrist, but not the rapture. The apocalyptic passages in Matt don't mention a pretrib rapture either - so how do any of these not make sense in a non-pretrib view?
This is most interesting. Since the earth is destroyed in 2 Peter 3:10-11 when Christ returns (according to Chris), which earth will he reign over?
</font>[/QUOTE]Continue reading in the same passage (v12-13): "Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? [13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." Also Rev 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
It is possible I have missed some. Please provide the passages, showing how they are 1. physically on the earth, 2. after Christ's return and 3. prior to the destruction.
God bless,
Brian
[ June 07, 2002, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
Ray Berrian
New Member
The Amil' people believe in one final judgment day for every human being. If this is true then why did Christ through the Apostle Paul say, that the ' . . . dead in Christ' will rise at the rapture of the church? How is He going to judge all at the same time, when the Bible clearly states that only the saints will arise from the dead? I realize this does not cover the entire idea of a Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture. Your answer is in the following paragraph.
The wicked dead will arise from their graves after the 'thousand year' millennium. Note Revelation 20:5. 'But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.'
The wicked dead will arise from their graves after the 'thousand year' millennium. Note Revelation 20:5. 'But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.'
I really like this question, because it is basically this very question that was the catalyst for me in leaving the pretrib view point several years ago.
1 Thess 5:2-3 says "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. [3] For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."
The concept of the "thief in the night" does indeed intend to convey the sense of unexpectedness, and bringing distruction. Even Luke 12:39 says "And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through." But if you continue reading the 1 Thess 5 passage, the next verse says "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." and Rev 3:3b says "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief". Yes, Christ is coming as a thief, unexpectedly, but only to those in darkness - to us, the children of light, his coming will NOT be unexpected like a thief in the night. We will *know* when roughly to expect him. For he has even explicity told us when he is coming as a thief: Rev 16:15-16 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed [is] he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. [16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." - after the 6th bowl, at armageddon! He comes as a thief, bring sudden unexpected destruction, upon the antichrist and the unrighteous! 2 Thess 2:8 says Christ will destroy the antichrist with the "brightness" of his coming, the Greek being "epiphaneia". An epiphany is a physical, visible manifestation, and there are only two talked about in scripture, the first and the second: one 2000 years ago and the other after the trib. And 1 Tim 6:14 encourages us to remain faithful until the "epiphaneia".
The Lord's coming will be as a thief alright, but upon the unrighteous at the end of the trib, not the righteous at the beginning of it.
God bless,
Brian
I have read many early church father quotes on "imminency". Yes, they believed in "imminency", but I think in a very different sense than pretrib/premillers do today. Today, the term is used to convey a sense of "nothing more must happen first, it can happen at any moment". But then, I am convinced they were only talking of an "impending" return of Christ. Even Christ himself prophesied that Peter would die an old man. The Apostles had to preach the gospel to the whole world. The apostles had to wait for a comforter to come. And the comforter would help bring things to their remembrance, implying there would be enough time to forget things without the Holy Spirit's help. None of these things allow an "at any moment" type of imminency for the apostles or early church. How could Peter, as a young man, believe in an "at any moment" rapture if he already knew he would die as an old man?
Even the early church fathers expected persecution at the hands of the antichrist. The "imminent" return of Christ for the early church simply meant an "impending" return of Christ - which is actually at odds with pretrib, not the other views - not the other way around.
God bless,
Brian
I Thes. 4:[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Hallelujah! This is plain enough for me!
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Hallelujah! This is plain enough for me!
One thing that should be pointed out is that Yes, the early Church Fathers were Premill but No, they were not Pretrib but Posttrib. Premill is not synomous with Pretrib as many Postrib, Midtrib, and Prewrathers will tell you.
Eagle 911, my apologies for being wrong on your gender.
As for the Abomination of Desolation being the AntiChrist sacrificing a pig in a Tribulation Temmple..one wonders why it would be so great of an Abomination. Such a Temple would be no more holy than Mecca or a Buddhist Temple. Actually a rebuilt Temple would be a greater blasphemy to God than a Mecca or a Buddhist Temple since it would be mocking the crucifiction. The AntiChrist sacrificing a pig in a Tribulation Temple would be no more blashemous to God than the lambs being sacrificed by the Jews there.
Eagle 911, my apologies for being wrong on your gender.
Daniel David
New Member
Kiffin, Ken, Chris and others...
A rebuilt temple during the Tribulation will be an abomination. The fact of it being of such great importance and the abomination of desolation is because the Antichrist will be worshipped by practically the whole world as god. He does not have to sacrifice a pig for it to be an abomination. Everything about the situation is an abomination. The temple, himself, he declares to be god, etc.
I am still waiting for the amill to prove his position using just the Bible. I have said it before, Berkhof admits that amill can only be traced back to Origen and Augustine (not exactly the best of commentators). He also says that the early church was chiliastic (premillenial). It cannot be dogmatically asserted that they were posttrib. The believed that Christ was coming immenantly and that what they were going through was tribulation (it doesn't have to be THE tribulation).
As far as the 7 year time frame, one needs to look no further than Daniel 9 and the book of Revelation (1260 days, 42 months, etc.) When you look at the time frame, it equals 7 years. That is simple mathematics, not some mystical interpretation. You can disagree that the 7 years are actual and instead mean something else, just don't do your taxes with the same math.
Ken, I would listen to the messages if I could. My computer cannot access them. So I tried. That is all I can do in that regard.
A rebuilt temple during the Tribulation will be an abomination. The fact of it being of such great importance and the abomination of desolation is because the Antichrist will be worshipped by practically the whole world as god. He does not have to sacrifice a pig for it to be an abomination. Everything about the situation is an abomination. The temple, himself, he declares to be god, etc.
I am still waiting for the amill to prove his position using just the Bible. I have said it before, Berkhof admits that amill can only be traced back to Origen and Augustine (not exactly the best of commentators). He also says that the early church was chiliastic (premillenial). It cannot be dogmatically asserted that they were posttrib. The believed that Christ was coming immenantly and that what they were going through was tribulation (it doesn't have to be THE tribulation).
As far as the 7 year time frame, one needs to look no further than Daniel 9 and the book of Revelation (1260 days, 42 months, etc.) When you look at the time frame, it equals 7 years. That is simple mathematics, not some mystical interpretation. You can disagree that the 7 years are actual and instead mean something else, just don't do your taxes with the same math.
Ken, I would listen to the messages if I could. My computer cannot access them. So I tried. That is all I can do in that regard.
I am willing to provide scriptural backing for amill. What exactly are you looking for? I can provide many scriptures that say the kingdom is present, Christ is reigning, etc, etc, etc.
And yet you are pretrib, which can only be traced back to Edward Irving in the 1800's. If you study his views and background, I doubt many Baptists would be very comfortable with him.
Origen and Augustine may have been the first to systematically explain amill, but if the lateness and character is a problem, it is a much worse problem for pretrib. Will someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE find ANY evidence of pretrib belief before 1800? All I find is expectation to be persecuted by the antichrist, and encouragement to endure until Christ returns to destroy him.
Can one disagree with the *placement* of the 7 years? When you calculate your taxes, do you place a 2000 year gap between November and December?
You can disagree that the 7 years are actual and instead mean something else, just don't do your taxes with the same math.
God bless,
Brian
I wanted to address Mr. Willis' remark about Catholicism and the Jehovah Witnesses.
The Jehovah Witness does not even believe in the Rapture or any such thing at all. Their end time doctrine is far different then pre-trib, post trib, amillenial etc.
As far as blaming everything on the Catholic Church my point is and will always be that the Protestant church do hold to doctrines that started in Rome. The doctrine of the Trinity started in Roman Councils of Nicea and Trent.
Athansius was the one who debated the belief that the Father and son was separate persons with Arius at the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. Until the council of Trent which declared the Holy spirit the Third person of the Godhead the word Trinity had not been coined. Athanasius is the one who coined the word Trinity.
Therefore all those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity believe in something from Rome.
The Jehovah Witness does not even believe in the Rapture or any such thing at all. Their end time doctrine is far different then pre-trib, post trib, amillenial etc.
As far as blaming everything on the Catholic Church my point is and will always be that the Protestant church do hold to doctrines that started in Rome. The doctrine of the Trinity started in Roman Councils of Nicea and Trent.
Athansius was the one who debated the belief that the Father and son was separate persons with Arius at the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. Until the council of Trent which declared the Holy spirit the Third person of the Godhead the word Trinity had not been coined. Athanasius is the one who coined the word Trinity.
Therefore all those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity believe in something from Rome.
Amen, preachtheword! It seems some here are confusing the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth when the Mount of Olives is split in two with the Rapture, which is a separate event! It also seems we keep going over these same topics over and over again and any Scriptures we give are ignored!
It also seems that some here want to deny the rebuilding of the Third Temple as an actual prophecy to yet be fulfilled. Like pre-tribbers have some control over what prophecy will and will not be fulfilled! Why is that? Beats me!
Is there are great divide here?
In any Baptist church I've ever been in (scores of them), the rapture has been preached as a separate event from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth. In fact, I don't personally know any Baptist (out of thousands) who believe otherwise. I guess I'm flabbergasted at these other views! Frankly, I've never heard of these other views from any Baptist before joining this board! Color me appalled, shocked, and aghast!
A question: What if pre-tribbers are right? On the other hand, what if post-tribbers are right?
Can someone please tell me how that affects what we are supposed to be doing insofar as the Great Commission? Can someone tell me how this discussion furthers proclamation of the Gospel?
I am just wondering these things. In any event, does pre-trib, post-trib matter insofar as the ultimate outcome of Bible prophecy?
It also seems we keep going over these same topics over and over again and any Scriptures we give are ignored! It also seems that some here want to deny the rebuilding of the Third Temple as an actual prophecy to yet be fulfilled. Like pre-tribbers have some control over what prophecy will and will not be fulfilled!
Why is that? Beats me! Is there are great divide here?
In any Baptist church I've ever been in (scores of them), the rapture has been preached as a separate event from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth. In fact, I don't personally know any Baptist (out of thousands) who believe otherwise. I guess I'm flabbergasted at these other views! Frankly, I've never heard of these other views from any Baptist before joining this board! Color me appalled, shocked, and aghast!
A question: What if pre-tribbers are right? On the other hand, what if post-tribbers are right?
Can someone please tell me how that affects what we are supposed to be doing insofar as the Great Commission? Can someone tell me how this discussion furthers proclamation of the Gospel?
I am just wondering these things. In any event, does pre-trib, post-trib matter insofar as the ultimate outcome of Bible prophecy?
As for you guys who are asking for exegetical support for how these passages assume the pretrib rapture, I will make only a couple of comments. As time permits perhaps I will make more.
1. It is amazing to me that you guys who hold your position so firmly are so unfamiliar with your opponent's arguments. If you are so firmly convinced that you are right, that would imply that you are familiar with my position and the arguments I use to sustain. You shouldn't be having to ask me how these passages "work" in the argument. It seems that many people believe what they have been told without bothering to check it out by Scripture. This is not all, but it does seem to be many.
2. As for the exegetical proof, volumes have been written in support of it. The fact that it is supposedly "new" does not carry much weight really. All through church history we see the development of doctrine and understanding. Eschatology, being one of the last things, is certainly one of the last doctrines to be studied in depth.
3. As for the assumption, I maintain that 1 Thess 4 and 5 presume Paul had tuaght a pretrib rapture. Read Walvoord's articles in "Vital Prophetic Issues" ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel), 1995. These will provide you a basic framework from which to operate. Walvoord also has a book entitled "The Rapture Question, Revised" available at CBD. It will be a good start on why we believe what we do. Additionally, RL Thomas commentary on Revelation is probably hands down, the best available in terms of being current, dealing with the various positions in a theological and analytical way, and being complete. For those really interested, I would encourage you to get your hands on these books and study them. At least you would then be informed unbelievers
... (It's a joke ... RELAX).
3. As for 1 Thessalonians 4, let me quote from Walvoord's conclusion to his article (p. 210):
4. In 1 Thessalonians 5, there is no way that the time of the tribulation preceding the second coming can be called a time of peace and safety. To call it a time of peace and safety must deny the clear description of the tribulation in Revelation. Yet the DOL comes during a time of peace and safety. Therefore, it must start prior to the tribulation. We, the saints, are not destined for the wrath of this great tribulation but for salvation. Therefore, we will be taken out from it. It will not overtake us, like a theif in the night. But it will overtake them because they are secure. In the tribulation, men are crying for rocks to fall on them, they are cursing God because of the sicknesses and violence, hardly the picture of "Peace and safety" that Paul talks of in 1 Thessalonians 5. 1 Thess 5 assumes a pretrib rapture.
5. 2 Thess 2 assumes a pretrib rapture. The saints there are confused because some, under the guise of being from Paul, have been teaching that the DOL has begun. They are confused becaseu Paul had taught them that they would be gone when the DOL started. Therefore, it is clear that Paul taught the the believers would be gone prior to the DOL which begins with teh Great Tribulation.
6. The OT passages in virtually every prophet teach a restored nation with their messianic king ruling over them. Zechariah 10-12 is explicit on this. For those who say that Christ does not rule on this earth have a very difficult time with this passage (and most others) as it stands. They must redefine the words to mean something other than what they say. This is an issue of hermeneutics, which is what lies between "us" and "you."
I do not deny that you love God and Christ and look for his appearing. I do not question your love for the truth. I think most of you do not question mine (I hope so anyway). Let it be said that until we agree on a hermeneutic, this will continue to be at issue. Though Chris would disagree with me, I think we should use the normal hermeneutic, the one used by everyone who uses language in anyway (including the apostles). Let language mean what it says.
In the end, I am not going to run anyone out of Christianity over their timing. The fundamental issue is a personal return of Christ in judgment and victory.
At least as a pretribber, we are the only one's who can change our position if we are wrong. Too bad we won't need to.
[ June 07, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
1. It is amazing to me that you guys who hold your position so firmly are so unfamiliar with your opponent's arguments. If you are so firmly convinced that you are right, that would imply that you are familiar with my position and the arguments I use to sustain. You shouldn't be having to ask me how these passages "work" in the argument. It seems that many people believe what they have been told without bothering to check it out by Scripture. This is not all, but it does seem to be many.
2. As for the exegetical proof, volumes have been written in support of it. The fact that it is supposedly "new" does not carry much weight really. All through church history we see the development of doctrine and understanding. Eschatology, being one of the last things, is certainly one of the last doctrines to be studied in depth.
3. As for the assumption, I maintain that 1 Thess 4 and 5 presume Paul had tuaght a pretrib rapture. Read Walvoord's articles in "Vital Prophetic Issues" ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel), 1995. These will provide you a basic framework from which to operate. Walvoord also has a book entitled "The Rapture Question, Revised" available at CBD. It will be a good start on why we believe what we do. Additionally, RL Thomas commentary on Revelation is probably hands down, the best available in terms of being current, dealing with the various positions in a theological and analytical way, and being complete. For those really interested, I would encourage you to get your hands on these books and study them. At least you would then be informed unbelievers
3. As for 1 Thessalonians 4, let me quote from Walvoord's conclusion to his article (p. 210):
Walvoord addresses these problems in a little depth in his article.
4. In 1 Thessalonians 5, there is no way that the time of the tribulation preceding the second coming can be called a time of peace and safety. To call it a time of peace and safety must deny the clear description of the tribulation in Revelation. Yet the DOL comes during a time of peace and safety. Therefore, it must start prior to the tribulation. We, the saints, are not destined for the wrath of this great tribulation but for salvation. Therefore, we will be taken out from it. It will not overtake us, like a theif in the night. But it will overtake them because they are secure. In the tribulation, men are crying for rocks to fall on them, they are cursing God because of the sicknesses and violence, hardly the picture of "Peace and safety" that Paul talks of in 1 Thessalonians 5. 1 Thess 5 assumes a pretrib rapture.
5. 2 Thess 2 assumes a pretrib rapture. The saints there are confused because some, under the guise of being from Paul, have been teaching that the DOL has begun. They are confused becaseu Paul had taught them that they would be gone when the DOL started. Therefore, it is clear that Paul taught the the believers would be gone prior to the DOL which begins with teh Great Tribulation.
6. The OT passages in virtually every prophet teach a restored nation with their messianic king ruling over them. Zechariah 10-12 is explicit on this. For those who say that Christ does not rule on this earth have a very difficult time with this passage (and most others) as it stands. They must redefine the words to mean something other than what they say. This is an issue of hermeneutics, which is what lies between "us" and "you."
I do not deny that you love God and Christ and look for his appearing. I do not question your love for the truth. I think most of you do not question mine (I hope so anyway). Let it be said that until we agree on a hermeneutic, this will continue to be at issue. Though Chris would disagree with me, I think we should use the normal hermeneutic, the one used by everyone who uses language in anyway (including the apostles). Let language mean what it says.
In the end, I am not going to run anyone out of Christianity over their timing. The fundamental issue is a personal return of Christ in judgment and victory.
At least as a pretribber, we are the only one's who can change our position if we are wrong.
Too bad we won't need to.
[ June 07, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Daniel David
New Member
BrianT, I also believe that Christ is presently reigning and that the kingdom initiated with the New Covenant. However, I am still pretrib and premill. Believing these things does not work against pretribbers. Also, just because the kingdom started doesn't mean that the future holds in store an earthly aspect. You cannot prove decisively that there is no earthly reign. You can only present passages that teach a present kingdom. Well, I agree with that. If you do not understand how I can hold to such major similarities as you and still be a pretribber, you have alot to learn and alot less to criticize. BTW, I am not a progressive dispensationalist. Your rejection is apparently of Chafferian dispensationalism. I disagree with alot of it myself. He didn't have a corner on dispensationalism, just alot of influence.
An argument from history alone is insufficient. If I presents a thousand definite pretrib statements, the amills would simply say that the Bible disagrees with them. Therefore, time alone means nothing. My reason for bringing it up was that an amiller actually gave the historical advantage to the premillers.
In Daniel 9, a time gap is assumed. The gap can also be found in 1 Corinthians 15. I think the verses are somewhere around 22-26.
Brian, as one who has studied in depth the amill position, my premill position has been strengthened and confirmed time and again.
For an excellent book on the subject, please read the Zondervan Counterpoints series on the millenium. It is very good.
An argument from history alone is insufficient. If I presents a thousand definite pretrib statements, the amills would simply say that the Bible disagrees with them. Therefore, time alone means nothing. My reason for bringing it up was that an amiller actually gave the historical advantage to the premillers.
In Daniel 9, a time gap is assumed. The gap can also be found in 1 Corinthians 15. I think the verses are somewhere around 22-26.
Brian, as one who has studied in depth the amill position, my premill position has been strengthened and confirmed time and again.
For an excellent book on the subject, please read the Zondervan Counterpoints series on the millenium. It is very good.
Not True at all! Athanasius nor any of the Church fathers up til the 6th century were not Roman Catholics. Athanasius was a member of the Church of Alexandria and these Churches at the Synod of the ancient councils referred to themselves as "Catholic" or Universal (meaning the Church goes beyound National, racial or ethnic boundaries). The ancient Catholic churches were no more Roman Catholic than the Southern Baptist Convention.
Ernie Brazee
<img src ="/ernie.JPG">
A pre-trib rapture is su[[orted by previous events picturing the rapture. God has delivered His own prior to judgement.
Genesis 6 & 7 Delivered Noah and his family prior to the flood.
Genesis 19 Delivered Lot before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah
Exodus 13 and following destroyed Pharoahs army after delivering Israel from Egypt.
Ernie
Genesis 6 & 7 Delivered Noah and his family prior to the flood.
Genesis 19 Delivered Lot before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah
Exodus 13 and following destroyed Pharoahs army after delivering Israel from Egypt.
Ernie
I agree that it doesn't. But I think in general terms, pretribbers downplay it quite a bit.
Again, what exactly are you looking for when you say "waiting for the amill to prove his position using just the Bible"? I'm just trying to get an idea of where you see amill failing.I do not wish to. I believe there will be an earthly reign.
I agree. I just thought I'd take the opportunity again to see if anyone is willing to find/post some pretrib quotes prior to 1800.
People keep saying they exist, but no one seems able to find them. Why is a time gap assumed? What method of exegesis allows us to arbitrarily insert gaps whereever we want, just to make scripture fit a preconceived notion?
For me, it was sort of the other way around. I was raised solidly premill/pretrib. I vocally and enthusiastically defended it until my mid-20s. Several years ago, I decided to honestly give other views a fair examination. My study of premill/posttrib, postmill, amill and preterism over the last several years obliterated years of pretrib indoctrination, even though I fought it all the way, wanting to cling to my pretrib view. But so many things showed me I was reading into scripture and making assumptions. I ended up having to reject pretrib outright, and sit on the fence between premill and amill.
God bless,
Brian
Yet they remained on the earth for the 7 days prior, and were only lifted on the last day, the day of the final destruction.
Again, Lot was not removed 7 days/years before the final destruction, but on the very last day:
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.
Yet again, those rescued were not rescued 7 days/years earlier. In fact, the Israelites did not leave Egypt *before* the "tribulation" of the plagues, but were present even though God's wrath were not directed at them.
Ernie, I agree there are "types" and "shadows" in the OT. But unless the NT explicitly explains them, I do not believe it is our job to find them - the practice is way too subjective to be of any practical value, and types and shadows can be found for *any* view, often in the very same events, as I've illustrated above.
God bless,
Brian